Scott's Pool School
Contact Me
  • Welcome!
  • Lessons and Articles
  • Master Class
  • Aiming Systems
    • SEE System and Pro One
  • Pics
  • Videos
  • Links
  • About Me

When is a Tip not a Tip?

2/9/2013

11 Comments

 
It’s funny how something so simple as placing your tip on the cue ball can be so misunderstood or misrepresented.  I hear people say things like “Use 1 tip of english”, or “Just a little, maybe ¼ tip”, or “Use maximum english, 3 tips”.  I’ve even heard of people saying they use 4 tips of english (which is impossible no matter which definition you go by).  I’ll try to clear some of this up.
Picture
Take a look at the diagram above.  I did something pretty simple – went into Word, and used the rulers (both in inches and metric) to draw a cue ball to scale, 2 1/4” in diameter.  I was also able to use the drawing tool and come up with circles to represent the cue tip that were ½” in diameter (12.7mm). An average size tip, and it worked out well since Word automatically snaps the drawing objects to the nearest ¼” marking.

I started with center ball and drew three overlapping tips going up and down to represent three increments of follow and draw, overlapping in a slightly different manner so you can see the overlaps clearly.  As you can see, what is commonly called a “tip” is actually a half tip – that is, you move the center of your tip up or down to the edge of the previous tip’s location.  If you do this three times from the center in any direction, you reach very close to the maximum you can hit without a miscue.

A few things are interesting about this.  First, what I believe most people mean when they say 1 tip of english is actually a half tip.  I believe that because most people I know, and most everything I’ve read, frequently talks about using 1, 2, or 3 tips of english, or somewhere in between.  You can see from the diagram that it’s impossible to use 3 full tips of english, if everyone went by the physical definition we would be talking about using ½, 1, or 1 ½ tips, not 1, 2, or 3. 

Another possible explanation is that they are referring to the contact patch between the tip and the cue ball.  Regardless of tip location, the contact patch is roughly 3mm in diameter.  If you look to the right of the center axis in the diagram, I’ve drawn these contact patch positions, and you can see that as you move up, and different parts of the tip are hitting different parts of the curvature of the cue ball, you get a nice progression of 1, 2, and 3 tip positions above or below center.  They are not right next to each other, and in theory you could hit spots in between these, just like you can with the regular tip positions, but they give us good reference points to work from.

Speaking of which, when hitting maximum draw or follow (or side for that matter), you can see that the cue tip is 3 half tips above center, but it is actually making contact with the cue ball roughly half way between the center and edge of the cue ball.  This is about the limit before the curvature of the cue ball prevents a solid hit, or in the case of draw before the table gets in the way.  Since most striped balls are exactly that size, you can practice hitting with maximum spin by orientating the stripe either horizontally for draw/follow or vertically for side spin, and then aiming the inner edge of your tip at the outer edge of the stripe.  If applying fresh chalk you often can also see the mark you left after the hit as well, as long as it’s not rubbed off by the table.  You must learn to hit near these maximum limits to get that smooth “whipping” action on your cue ball with a minimum of force, or if you ever want to enter a trick shot competition…  J

And finally, to dispel one last myth – while your tip shape (dime vs. nickel) might allow you to press the limits a bit more, or at least more than a poorly shaped tip, the size of the shaft doesn’t matter that much within normal limits.  I’ve heard people say they get more english with a Predator Z2 shaft, or a similar thinner shaft.  The difference between that 11.75mm shaft and my example shaft of 12.7mm is 1 mm.  Which means that for each half tip progression, the tip location is .5mm lower.  After 3 half tips, I would be 1.5mm further from the edge than with my sample drawing.   So yes I could move slightly more toward the edge with a thinner shaft in terms of “tips”, but the actual physical location of the edge of the tip in the maximum tip position for either shaft is achievable just the same.  The difference with the smaller shafts is that visually they appear to be slightly less toward the outside of the ball, or more above the table on draw shots, which may give some people the confidence to venture more toward the edge of the ball.

So be aware of the possible confusion around this, and when someone tells you to use a tip of english make sure you know which tip size they mean!
11 Comments
Paul link
2/15/2014 09:00:19 am

Before re-reading this in detail, which seems to make sense, the MSword drawing is 2-D. Now, thinking out loud, assumptions come to mind, such as "level stick" to render a 2-D representation "as a possibility." Over-complicating something is against (my) nature, but over-simplification is equally "risky" I suppose. Trying to say all of this differently: "I like the idea - of understanding the 'tip' metric," very much so, indeed. I can't help but WONDER (innocuously) if the parameters are well defined (by Scott I mean) and if they are, then (virtually) all tip metrics need to be revisited if not reconsidered or even redefined. It's the same as me "asking" - which is what I'm literally doing: "Is Capelle's 'speed metric' i.e., 1-10 (quasi-linear) well posed or well defined?" Is a "5" equal to a perfect lag? He insists that speed is paramount in 14-1 pool, or words to that effect, so why NOT establish a "standard." That's why I LIKE the premise of what Scott has done here, and would (naturally) like a second opinion, not because consensus = truth, but because of "natural" skepticism and genuine interest. IOW, things that are pursued to their natural "extreme(s)" and/or "conclusions" are almost always intriguing. My relatively innocuous question then becomes, "Scott, has this been done?" or "Has this been tried/tested in a practical sense?"

All My Best,
Paul

Reply
Paul link
2/16/2014 05:01:01 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ-xWRVDP2w
If you look at the Bert Kinister instructional above, for instance, about 5 minutes in, he describes (and shows clearly ) where 3 (maybe?) tips means the outside of the tip is outside the edge of the cue ball. The crown of the tip is NOT in contact w/ the cue ball. That last sentence (in some respect) may speak to dimensionality. Still, by no means do I think this suggests any sort of final verdict, because regardless of all that - it still SEEMS 3 tips is further than "outside edge of tip [very slightly] outside circumference of cue ball" as demonstrated in the Kinister video. The other thing I noticed in Kinister is that the "student" is using LOW left - if it even matters. I also don't know if it matters that a snooker tip might be 9.0mm, at least I remember it that way from what little I read about snooker shafts.

Reply
Paul link
2/16/2014 05:02:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ-xWRVDP2w
If you look at the Bert Kinister instructional above, for instance, about 5 minutes in, he describes (and shows clearly ) where 3 (maybe?) tips means the outside of the tip is outside the edge of the cue ball. The crown of the tip is NOT in contact w/ the cue ball. That last sentence (in some respect) may speak to dimensionality. Still, by no means do I think this suggests any sort of final verdict, because regardless of all that - it still SEEMS 3 tips is further than "outside edge of tip [very slightly] outside circumference of cue ball" as demonstrated in the Kinister video. The other thing I noticed in Kinister is that the "student" is using LOW left - if it even matters. I also don't know if it matters that a snooker tip might be 9.0mm, at least I remember it that way from what little I read about snooker shafts.

Reply
Scott Rohleder link
2/18/2014 09:47:39 am

You may be over complicating this a bit... :)

I think there is confusion over geometric tip placement and what most people call it, hence the reason for the article. You have only so much room before the curvature of the cue ball will not allow firm contact, the tip will simply slip off the edge. As you mentioned, the further you go toward the edge, the less the center or crown of the tip is in contact with the ball. Which is why it's important to have a properly shaped tip that meshes well with the curvature of the cue ball.

Tip size plays a part visually, but you can still only hit the same limit on the cue ball with the inside edge of the tip no matter what the size. The difference is where the outer edge of the tip is visually on the cue ball, or how much clearance you have from the table say on a draw shot. You can't really get more spin with a smaller diameter tip, but visually for some players they will venture more toward the edge and therefore have the effect of getting more spin.

At the limit of a miscue, the outside edge of a normal sized tip is close to the edge of the cue ball - maybe just a touch inside. That visualization will also depend on how your cue stick is angled to apply the spin. The main concept here is whether you count in true tip sizes (1/2, 1, and 1 1/2 tips) or based on contact points on the cue ball (1, 2, 3 tips), mastering tip positions and other variables like speed, pivot angle, and elevation are key to learning and effectively using spin in your game.
Scott

Reply
Paul
2/18/2014 12:18:45 pm

Yet that's the exact opposite of my aim. IOW I totally agree "simplest would be best - at least to start with - even in the long run if possible." If you were to look at the youtube video I posted a URL, Kinister PHYSICALLY demonstrates that "At the limit of a miscue, the outside edge of a normal sized tip is close to the edge of the cue ball - maybe just a touch inside" may be a misconception. He demonstrates that the limit - which may be partly what's at stake and maybe not - is a touch OUTSIDE. If "he's right and you're wrong," for lack of a better expression, then it seems (on the surface of things) that perhaps (almost) three tips is the outer limit. I've not seen "4 tips" suggested, which it seems surely WOULD complicate things - if that 4 tip parameter enters into the discussion. IF.

Obviously, since I hadn't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't been written. It might help if you were to source it, Scott.

Fortunately, I'm totally clear about "I think there is confusion over geometric tip placement and what most people call it," and I am concerned (personally) about "mastering tip positions"; concerned enough that I'll be closely looking at Byrne, Capelle, and Dr. Dave (mainly or for instance or whatever) in the near future to see what I can do to accomplish or achieve mastery, or rather, even steady improvement if that's more reasonable. Scott, I'm working from memory (with regard to written materials) and I have a hard time running more than one or two racks of 8-ball on any given night right now. So I'm open to suggestions ... but if/when the subject comes up in the course of events, then it'd be nice to fully understand and/or accurately interpolate any given metric - or even nicer to take it literally on face value. However, you're suggesting - if I'm reading you right - that it is impossible (to take 1,2,3 tips at face value). In tennis for instance there's no "dispute" to my knowledge about what is Western and/or Extreme Western grips. However, you're clearly positing that there is "an ambiguity" of sorts about tip metrics. Hopefully it's safe to assume 90% of the time one reads about 12-13mm tip(s). The only reason I put that is because we'd have to agree on scaling of any metric, which seems clear from the outset. So there is no scaling, and "a tip is a tip is a tip." But according to you, it's not. I'd be the first to admit I need to re-read (starting at the top) a third time what you've written to try to digest and assimilate the ideas in detail. But there's a "discrepancy" about what you've put and what a professional instructor (just one so far - not a bunch) of some renown has stated/shown. I don't know if that discrepancy matters as of yet, it requires a bit more explanation/investigation is all. From my point of view, I mean. It might be unimportant.

I'd love to keep it simple. Until I read your blog post, it was simple. It was utterly uncomplicated. At least I THOUGHT so. But honestly, I never put it into practice (as of yet). A tip was a tip was a tip. But you're saying its not THAT simple, i.e., that its more complicated than that. I'm open to the idea. I'm just not 100% convinced of how to apply it, is all.

When I look at your drawing, it SURE DOES SEEM that about "2.5 tips" is the "maximum" (if the perimeter of the tip is tangent to the center of the ball to start - which seems 1/2 tip "arbitrary" in all honesty) allowable without a miscue.

You started your article by saying "It’s funny how something so simple as placing your tip on the cue ball can be so misunderstood or misrepresented." Scott, the more I look at this, the more I'm inclined to agree. IOW I agree with the premise, just a little vague on the explanation is all.

I may "disagree" about some of the minutia, but there is obviously something "funny" or "strange" going on. Surely there must be some sort of vague, undefined convention that students/instructors have "glossed over," and in the end, I think you're probably right about what it is, and that "1 tip" really means "approximately 1/2 tip." It just doesn't seem possible to put 3 full tips English, and I even wondered about it (for a second I think) the first time I read it.

So it's a good article, it may not be perfect, but hey, I'm a relatively simple human being, and it makes sense enough to me that it clears the way for me to sort out the minutia. You know, if you wanted to crunch it down into two or three sentences, and say, "a tip is not truly a tip, and its just an agreed upon convention that's sufficiently misconstrued that it merits attention," and then show the drawing, that might accomplish the mission. I'm not sure. It's hard to say. Everybody's different. Good article, nonetheless.

Reply
Scott link
2/19/2014 02:52:57 am

Thx for your comment, but I think your comment is longer than my article... :)

The real premise of the article was to highlight inaccuracies around discussions of "tips" of english in pool. Especially when teaching, I need to be sure my student understands if I say use 1 tip of english, which "tip" I'm talking about - 1 actual tip (2 1/2 tip movements), or what most people think of as 1 tip, which is really just 1/2 tip. That's all. There are inaccuracies in our sport surrounding descriptions of tip placement, speed references etc., and it's good to try and get on the same page, especially when receiving instruction.

As far as the limits of english - I can't confirm whether Bert or others are right vs. me, or even if there's that much difference. I can't "see" the curvature of the ball in a 2D diagram, so can't be sure when the tip just won't have enough grip. I read a scientific article in Billiards Digest a long time ago by a Dr. Onoda I believe, where he mentioned the limit was around 9/16 away from center, which happens to be close to where the stripes are on a centennial ball. At this limit, which I show in the diagram as well, the edge of the tip is slightly inside the edge of the cue ball, not outside.

It really doesn't matter though. I typically focus on a few positions - barely using english at all (like just a slight favoring away from center), 1/2 tip (where the edge of my tip is at the center axis of the cue ball), in between center and the edge (which is about 1 full tip), and maximum english. Learning how to compensate for those reference positions at various speeds and distances will strengthen your ability to use english for position play and feel like you are as accurate with spin as without.
Scott

Reply
Paul link
2/19/2014 11:57:11 am

yes of course my comment(s) needed to be drastically shortened and edited - at bare minimum we know somebody's trying to pay some sort of attention LOL!

After I though about it, your article is a very, very good one. Of course I could be a total idiot. It really matters not. In the end, if I'm teaching somebody something, sometimes one of the hardest things to do is try to "allow them the dignity of their own mistakes." It doesn't happen all that often (of either of those I mean). If I got something accomplished, and didn't think that, well, after setting it aside for a week or a year, that it couldn't be improved on, or perhaps tidied up slightly, I'd probably be a different man than I am now. The beauty of your article is that it says "this is surely worth thinking about, and there's room for interpretation." Fortunately I'm not getting paid by the keystroke (or maybe that's misfortune) but my understanding that if anybody cares to then they can excise the chaff and salvage/preserve the wheat. ... electronically I mean. so please, maybe it's best, if I've cluttered anything then please do go ahead and hit the "delete" key w/r/t my comments 'cause surely when you composed your article some slight editing went in somewhere. I doubt I could improve on it to be sure ... but I'd be loathe to distract or detract in any way. So like I say, I think it'd probably just be better on the whole just to completely "nix" what I put, then that way others would profit by not having to wade through my rather messy/unedited convolutions. To be sure I'd take no offense if it went back to a more pristine state (and would consider it a kindly gesture on your part).

Best As Always,
Paul

Paul link
2/19/2014 12:43:12 pm

I'm sorry Scott I almost completely forgot to put that your "modified corner 5 diamond system" looks to be fantastic!

My only regret (and I'm just now at the phase of "thinking about TRYING to implement") was that I couldn't figure out how to print (or download take your pick) the diagrams which I thought was REALLY nice to have in color ... nice for lots of reasons but the B&W Byrne version (which I just picked up a week or so ago) leaves a bit to be desired is probably the main one. It's odd, but somebody like me who's quite comfortable w/ basic mechanics but extremely unversed (not a word) in strategy and/or "techniques" then my learning (limited!) thus far is a little hop-scotch to say the least.

Apart from all that your "modified corner 5 diamond system" (if that's the correct moniker) looks to be something I really find fascinating (and will probably set out to learn). I'm trying to remember ... I could take screen shots or go to scribd ... but ultimately "physically having the thing printed at my side in the poolroom" seems to be a logical next step so to speak.

Now Scott, if that material seems interesting (and I just sort of started looking at your blog) then there's no reason for me to think the other articles wouldn't be intriguing as well so my apologies if I got a bit off track on the tip is a tip thing. It's just good stuff is all - that's not a backhanded compliment or anything like that.

Reply
Joe
3/27/2015 10:17:55 am

For what it's worth, Stan Shuffett defines his half-tip pivot as aligning the edge of the ferrule with center ball and then pivoting so that the center of the shaft/tip is aligned with center ball. According to that metric, shifting one edge of the tip to the location previously occupied by the opposite edge of the tip would accomplish a full tip shift.

Reply
Scott Rohleder
3/27/2015 12:21:44 pm

That is correct Joe, and what I mentioned in the article. Moving the edge to the center, or center to the edge, is a 1/2 tip offset, exactly what Stan describes and uses as part of the manual portion of CTE/Pro1. By extending that concept, you can see that you can only get to about 3 1/2 tips before reaching the miscue limit. As mentioned in the article, this is what most people refer to as "3 tips", but in reality it's 3 "1/2" tips.
Scott

Reply
Greater Southern - Canton Pool Table link
11/17/2022 10:32:04 am

Thank you for sharing your insights about this topic. Looking forward to read more articles like this in the future.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2015
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All
    Drills
    General
    Instructional
    Kicking Systems

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.